Who cares about steroids?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Especially what your goals are, and what you do and do not put into your body to achieve those goals</div>

Your goals are completely irrelevant if you want to be Mr.Olympia. Take the drugs or get out of the ifbb, there is no choice. Use is 100% necessary. Same goes for the kind of totals that Andy puts up in powerlifting.  The most talented will not win without drugs. That's the fact, and it's unfortunate.

 

<div>
(xahrx @ Jun. 13 2007,13:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thing is no one forced him to use.  It was his decision, and like the way he went or not, he made it on his own and without a gun to his head.

I get a bit annoyed when people imply use is necessary.</div>
I agree with you.

Andy bolton, or whoever, wanted to use the drugs, they help, just like a bench shirt helps your bench, they are a tool imo. And drugs haven't ruined sports. Sports have always been about competition and doing anything possible to get an edge.

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,14:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Your goals are completely irrelevant if you want to be Mr.Olympia.</div>
No, being Mr. Olympia is a goal. And if drugs are in one's opinion required to reach that goal and one does not want to use drugs, then one can attempt to attain the title naturally or do something else with one's time. Nothing and no one is forcing anyone to take steroids.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Use is 100% necessary. Same goes for the kind of totals that Andy puts up in powerlifting. The most talented will not win without drugs. That's the fact, and it's unfortunate.</div>

That may in fact be so, but it doesn't change the fact that no one forced Bolton to try and get the highest DL number or whatever he's got now. He decided to do that. He decided to take steroids to get his numbers up. Whether or not he could have performed the same without the drugs is irrelevant. He didn't have to go for the record to begin with. It was his decision, no one put a gun to his head and said, &quot;Listen here fella, you're gonna dead lift more than anyone in history or I'm gonna redecorate with your brains...&quot;

He could have been a CPA or a school teacher. He decided to be a power lfter. He further decided drugs were necessary to excel to the point he wanted to get to. And whether or not he was right, that does not change the fact that he still had a choice and he is responsible for it. The testosterone didn't jump off the shelf and shove itself into his arm. The weights didn't come crashing down on him, forcing him to be a lifter or die. He chose. If drugs are necessary to compete on a certain level that's life. Don't want to do the drugs, tell the sporting org to get their testing in order so cheaters are found out, or don't compete. No one is forcing you to use your time in such a way.

 

Yeah, no one is unconditionally forcing anyone to take drugs.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It's only a conditional necessity if you want to be competitive, and athletes who compete are exacerbating the problem (at least I see it as a problem). I would prefer that the most talented athletes would be given the opportunity to be competitive regardless of their decision when it comes to the use of drugs.  Especially in the case of bbing, where the requirements go far beyond steroids).

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,16:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yeah, no one is unconditionally forcing anyone to take drugs.  I don't think anyone is arguing that.  It's only a conditional necessity if you want to be competitive, and athletes who compete are exacerbating the problem (at least I see it as a problem).  I would prefer that the most talented athletes would be given the opportunity to be competitive regardless of their decision when it comes to the use of drugs.  Especially in the case of bbing, where the requirements go far beyond steroids).</div>
But then what does this mean?  I mean, what about people who can't compete period?  Do they get special leagues or something?  Say we have a no holds barred bodybuilding circuit.  Use whatever you want.  Below that a natural one with strict testing and what not.  What about people who can't compete in that one?  Or what if no one is interested in that one?  It can't get funding, is that denying people the opportunity to compete because the org can't support itself?

I don't see it as a problem because it's no different in the end than hiring a more effective coach or getting access to better equipment/methods through some other means.  Or having better control over your diet.  I mean protein shakes don't grow on trees.  Nor do multi vitamins or fish oil supplements.  So what makes them anymore natural than testosterone, which to be blunt is already in your body regardless of supplementation?  What's so natural about maxing out your vitamin intake and getting any performance benefits that may come from doing so, but so unnatural about doing the same with hormones? There is no rational basis for declaring one cheating and the other perfectly fine.

 

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I mean, what about people who can't compete period?  Do they get special leagues or something?</div>

As aforementioned, my opinion is that talent must be the deciding force.  If you can't compete because you aren't physically or mentally talented enough to be competitive, then in my view that's just your tough luck. Fortunately, competitive people with similiar levels of skill often wind up forming leagues to compete against each other (special olympics, for instance).  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Below that a natural one with strict testing and what not.  What about people who can't compete in that one?  Or what if no one is interested in that one?  It can't get funding, is that denying people the opportunity to compete because the org can't support itself?</div>

Yes, of course it's denying people the opportunity to compete, and that is the way it should be.  If you run a business and no one is interested in the product, then it's time to give the people what they want.  Therefore, if few people agree with me and most want bodybuilding or plifting to stay the same, then it should stay the same. However, that won't change my opinion.  In my eyes it's still a shame and I can wish more agreed with me so things would change.  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So what makes them anymore natural than testosterone, which to be blunt is already in your body regardless of supplementation?  What's so natural about maxing out your vitamin intake and getting any performance benefits that may come from doing so, but so unnatural about doing the same with hormones?</div>
When you ingest protein drinks, stock up on vitamins, to what degree are you altering your body's natural biochemistry?  I suppose there are extremes you could go to with vitamins that could wind up being dangerous, but can you really compare this to inhibiting estrogen production or synthetically increasing testosterone? Even increasing testosterone might not be too dangerous, but what happens when that is not good enough and athletes must take gh/slin/diuretics to compete?  You  think that popping vitamins &amp; washing down protein drinks can be put in the same category?

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,16:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would prefer that the most talented athletes would be given the opportunity to be competitive regardless of their decision when it comes to the use of drugs.</div>
Yeah and I want to live in a utopia of peace and love and brotherhood, unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.

 

<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jun. 13 2007,17:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,16:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would prefer that the most talented athletes would be given the opportunity to be competitive regardless of their decision when it comes to the use of drugs.</div>
Yeah and I want to live in a utopia of peace and love and brotherhood, unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.</div>
Gee, really ?

Do all of your opinions agree perfectly with the way the world is ? Yeah, that's what I thought. Mine don't either.

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,17:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As aforementioned, my opinion is that talent must be the deciding force.  If you can't compete because you aren't physically or mentally talented enough to be competitive, then in my view that's just your tough luck. Fortunately, competitive people with similiar levels of skill often wind up forming leagues to compete against each other (special olympics, for instance).</div>
Then what about a very talented individual with a bad coach, or a poor nutrition planner?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes, of course it's denying people the opportunity to compete, and that is the way it should be.  If you run a business and no one is interested in the product, then it's time to give the people what they want.  Therefore, if few people agree with me and most want bodybuilding or plifting to stay the same, then it should stay the same. However, that won't change my opinion.  In my eyes it's still a shame and I can wish more agreed with me so things would change.   </div>

Fair enough.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">When you ingest protein drinks, stock up on vitamins, to what degree are you altering your body's natural biochemistry?</div>

I have no idea, nor is it the point.  What makes a protein shake more natural than testosterone injections, or methylated orals?

I <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> suppose there are extremes you could go to with vitamins that could wind up being dangerous, but can you really compare this to inhibiting estrogen production or synthetically increasing testosterone?</div>

Yes.  There is no rational difference.  Hormones are more effective if used properly is the only difference.  But so what?  If plyometrics are a significantly more effective training technique for sport X, why not ban their use for the very same reason.  You're simply comparing tools one might use to reach one's goal, and analogously saying a hammer is more 'fair' or 'natural' than a nail gun.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Even increasing testosterone might not be too dangerous, but what happens when that is not good enough and athletes must take gh/slin/diuretics to compete?  You  think that popping vitamins &amp; washing down protein drinks can be put in the same category?</div>

It is the same category.  Think using too much protein can't have it's bad effects?  Digestively?  How about gout?  How about drinking enough water to upset your body's electrolite balance?  Pushing yourself to the limit of how much muscle your body can hold with as little fat as possible, with or without steroids, is not healthy. Most elite sports require people push themselves to points that are not healthy in the long term. Either dealing with ultra low body fat levels, or levels of exertion and poundings the body wasn't meant to take, etc.

The effects and possible side effects are irrelevant because it's just different degrees of the same thing, supplementing with something modfied such that you can not find it in nature.  Just because one tool, hormones, is more effective than others, like vitamins, doesn't make them fundamentally different than anything else anyone might use.  It's just a matter of degree of effectiveness.  It's no mark of fairness or naturalness to ban the most effective tools, and if that's the criteria why not ban the best gyms, or the best trainers?  They can add significantly to a person's performance.

What's the rational and fundamental difference between vitamins and hormones?  The answer is nothing in the end.  It's the same thing, one just has more pay off and risk potential than the other.

 

I am just saying....it is what it is, and it doesn't bother me at all that athletes use drugs.
Except, drugs are naughty!

and BAD!

 

Of course the kind of drugs necessary to envision talking rabbits and turtles... well those I may need some of.

 

Arnold's secret to bulking for the olympia:

 

Don't knock hemp protein.

 

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What's the rational and fundamental difference between vitamins and hormones?  The answer is nothing in the end.  It's the same thing, one just has more pay off and risk potential than the other.</div>

I think the difference is the level of danger. The amount of drugs that the most talented competitive athletes must take (especially bbers) is increasingly exposing them to biological harm that others with just as much or perhaps even more talent might not be willing to risk.  I don't want to get too bogged down in the semantical use of the word 'natural.'   If one wants to say that the protein powders are just as unnatural as steroids, I'll concede to that.  If I thought that the risk of upsetting your electrolyte balance enough so that your health is jeopardized to the same degree that it is by consuming all the drugs bbers do, I'd feel the same way about protein in relation to bbing &amp; plifting.

 

<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jun. 13 2007,17:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am just saying....it is what it is, and it doesn't bother me at all that athletes use drugs.
Except, drugs are naughty!

and BAD!</div>
lol...little bastard


http://www.domesticgear.com/

 

Two of my favorite guys hammering out ideas. For a hijack:
a.) If we had a carpentry competition, there would be distinctly rules for 1.) a hammer class and 2.) pneumatic class due to the massively evident difference in performance ability.
b.) We assume (and verify) that both naturals and AA's use vitamins, protein, etc. That levels the discussion, IMO. The difference comes with the use or non-use of AA's.
c.) Wasn't a natural BB'ing league or something tried before? Or is it actually still out there? I just seem to remember reading about it.

 

<div>
(quadancer @ Jun. 13 2007,20:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Wasn't a natural BB'ing league or something tried before? Or is it actually still out there? I just seem to remember reading about it.</div>
Yeah, there are also natural plifting orgs, such as NASA (although I hear they aren't exactly stringent in their testing). Of course, hardly anyone pays attention to these guys because there is little money sponsoring it (if any). Big money always goes where the big beef or big lifting numbers are, which is understandable.

I think one year the IFBB went....'semi' natural. Maybe it wasn't the ifbb, can't remember. I just remember seeing pics of Bob Chicherillo being posted from it on bb.com and everyone was asking why he was so small. There were some pics of Lee Haney too, again..'why so small?'

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 13 2007,18:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think the difference is the level of danger. The amount of drugs that the most talented competitive athletes must take (especially bbers) is increasingly exposing them to biological harm that others with just as much or perhaps even more talent might not be willing to risk.  I don't want to get too bogged down in the semantical use of the word 'natural.'   If one wants to say that the protein powders are just as unnatural as steroids, I'll concede to that.  If I thought that the risk of upsetting your electrolyte balance enough so that your health is jeopardized to the same degree that it is by consuming all the drugs bbers do, I'd feel the same way about protein in relation to bbing &amp; plifting.</div>
That's a difference in degree though, not in kind or a fundamental difference. And you may need to change your priorities, because so far as I know there are more deaths per year linked directly to hyponatremia than have ever been directly linked to steroids. Might give one pause to think on the issue.

 

I still think you're comparing apples to oranges. Drinking 3 gallons in one to two hours is not required to participate in a sport like bbing. Taking steroids is required (at least in the ifbb).

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 14 2007,17:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I still think you're comparing apples to oranges.  Drinking 3 gallons in one to two hours is not required to participate in a sport like bbing.  Taking steroids is required (at least in the ifbb).</div>
Didn't catch that in the rules.  But if you think professional body building is the only place where they are using steroids, you're mistaken.  They are widely used is all sports.  Most people just don't eat/train to add mass, so they reap other benefits like shorter recovery times, better body composition, increased reaction speed, etc.
If it is apples to oranges, then what is the fundamental difference between taking steroids and using/doing anything else, supplementation or otherwise, that improves your performance?